from the stop-the-secrecy dept

A group of over 80 law professors, including many prominent and well-known ones, have now called on President Obama to open up the secretive TPP process. They point out that, especially after the recent leak of the TPP's IP chapter, it's shown that the closed, secretive, non-transparent process leads to bad results. Instead, they argue for an open process, like the recent Marrakesh Treaty concerning copyright issues related to the blind. In that negotiation, proposals were made publicly and shared, so that there was widespread public comment and discussion. There is simply no good reason for the US government to continue negotiating this massive, and tremendously important treaty in secret. The lawyers are clear that they're not against the overall TPP agreement -- in fact, many support it. But they cannot accept the backroom process by which it has been negotiated.

We, the undersigned intellectual property law academics and scholars, write to you to ask you to support immediately changing the secretive TPP negotiation process in law and in practice, and follow instead the example set by the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, as explained below.

Intellectual property law is incredibly far reaching in its impact – implicating
everything from the price of medicines and textbooks to the ability to exercise free
expression and create new business models on the Internet. The TPP’s intellectual property
chapter would restrict Congress’s ability to legislate on these key issues, and would do so
without public input. Indeed, reported proposals in the TPP would foreclose many policy
proposals currently under consideration, including proposals to reform copyright law
proposed by the Library of Congress, proposals to reform “data exclusivity” periods for
biologic medicines included in the President’s budget, and proposals to amend exceptions
for the circumvention of technological protection measures to promote interoperability of
cell phones proposed by the Administration itself.

They also point out (nicely), that the administration should know better by now. Not only was the Marrakesh Treaty a success, but ACTA failed because of the USTR's insistence on doing everything in backrooms, and avoiding any and all transparency. So far, it looks like they haven't learned their lesson yet, but pushing the load of crap that is the current IP chapter on TPP seems likely to only give the USTR yet another refresher course in what happens when they decide to make deals like this in backrooms to favor Hollywood and Big Pharma, rather than having an open review in public.

from the serious-concerns dept

Supporters of SOPA keep tossing out Floyd Abrams' name as if it's some talisman, and that his word is final. Last I checked, Floyd Abrams is not the Supreme Court. Indeed, he's not even one of the nine justices. Or a judge at all. And his opinion is just one -- well respected -- lawyer's opinion. In fact, Abrams opinion concerning SOPA isn't even his own unbiased opinion. His opinion was written on behalf of his clients, including the MPAA and other lobbyists in favor of SOPA. And, even then, Abrams still admitted that SOPA would lead to the suppression of protected content. Either way, there are other lawyers out there, many of whom are just as well respected as Mr. Abrams. And when over 100 such lawyers get together and speak out against SOPA, perhaps one might come to the conclusion that Abrams' opinion on the legal aspects is one in the minority. This letter is a followup to the letter sent earlier about PROTECT IP, but noting that SOPA didn't fix any of the problems, and actually made many of them worse:

While there are some differences between SOPA and PROTECT-­IP, nothing in SOPA makes any effort
to address the serious constitutional, innovation, and foreign policy concerns that we expressed in that
letter. Indeed, in many respects SOPA is even worse than PROTECT-­IP. Among other infirmities, it would:

Redefine the standard for copyright infringement on the Internet, changing the definition of
inducement in a way that would not only conflict with Supreme Court precedent but would make
YouTube, Google, and numerous other web sites liable for copyright infringement.

Allow the government to block Internet access to any web site that "facilitated" copyright or trademark infringement -- a term that the Department of Justice currently interprets to require nothing more than having a link on a web page to another site that turns out to be infringing.

Allow any private copyright or trademark owner to interfere with the ability of web sites to host advertising or charge purchases to credit cards, putting enormous obstacles in the path of electronic commerce.

Most significantly, it would do all of the above while violating our core tenets of due process. By failing to
guarantee the challenged web sites notice or an opportunity to be heard in court before their sites are shut
down, SOPA represents the most ill-advised and destructive intellectual property legislation in recent
memory.

In sum, SOPA is a dangerous bill. It threatens the most vibrant sector of our economy -- Internet commerce. It is directly at odds with the United States' foreign policy of Internet openness, a fact that repressive regimes will seize upon to justify their censorship of the Internet. And it violates the First Amendment.